Recommendation on Ultra-Wide Angle Lens

[Kit-V]

I have a Canon 6D & a EF 24-105mm f/4L as my walkaround lens of choice. However, I am discovering more situations where a wider-angle zoom lens would be ideal. Although the Canon EF16-35mm f/4L is quite alluring, I am not sure that it would be preferable to go with yet a wider lens. However, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Having said that, I looked at the Canon 11-24mm f/4L but was deterred by the price tag. Thus, the question I have is: for those of you familiar with both Canon & non-Canon lenses somewhere in the 10-24mm range, can you recommend a suitable lens with an IQ on par with the Canon L-series lenses, but at a price point around $1000-$1200? Thank you so much.

[prairiewing]

I went through the same quest and ended up choosing the 16-35 f4 L.  I considered size, weight, versatility and image quality.  Price was secondary.  I looked at the 11-24 but it's massive by comparison.  I also considered a number of primes but the 16-35 had glowing reviews.  I don't use super-wides that much but haven't been disappointed.

[NancyP]

If you just want to give it a try for not much money, the 14mm Samyang (Rokinon, Bower, ProOptica, Vivitar, etc rebranding) f/2.8 lens, manual focus, is pretty darn cheap, $329.00 list, occasionally going on sale for 300 bucks. Image quality is good - very good in center, ok in corners at f/2.8, relatively low coma, I use mine for astrolandscape. Very bad for architecture - complex "mustache" shaped distortion, not the usual simple barrel distortion. Manual focus - if you are using it at f/5.6 or f/8, basically everything in the field is in focus using hyperfocal distance, assuming you are not actually touching the front element to your subject . Filters are problematic, a special-for-this-lens-only holder and the 2 stop ND grad filter costs (in Euros or pounds, US doesn't have them yet) almost as much as the bare lens.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859167-REG/Samyang_SY14M_C_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

I find it hard to compose for 14 mm, which has a 115 degree angle of view on a 6D. You get used to checking for tripod legs, your own legs, camera bag at your feet, etc.

[stever]

i've been through the same decision process over several years and ended up with  the 16-35 f4.  Image quality is very good for a wide angle zoom and the stabilization adds significant versatility for hand-held interior and low light shots traveling.  Size and weight is reasonable and it's weather resistant (with a filter attached).

For most applications, 16mm is wide enough. I've tried the Rokinon 14 on a couple occasions and have not been impressed with the image quality.  Focusing wide open is a nuisance as the focus scale is unusably inaccurate.

Anything wide with IQ as good or better than the 16-35 f4 is a lot more money.

[Kit-V]

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. You all seem to echo everything I have heard regarding the 16-35mm. And, in fact, I have been leaning that way. Realistically, I probably will have few occasions to use any lens wider than 16mm.

[Paulo Bizarro]

When I was shooting Canon, my wide angle lens for landscapes was the 16-35 f4 zoom, quite good. to me, 16 is already really wide, I am more comfortable around 21-24.

Not many systems offer such wide angles for FF, for Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander just came out with 10, 12, and 15mm lenses, for those who crave such lenses. For Canon EOS, the obvious choice is 11-14 zoom, which is beyond your budget, unfortunately. Samyang 14 comes to mind.

[shadowblade]

Before the 11-24 came out (and before the A7r came out) I used the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon body via an adapter. Now I use it on the A7r/A7r2.

You lose AF, but gain a fast UWA lens with great image quality.

Even now, it remains a viable option if you need speed (e.g. for night landscapes)

[Paulo Bizarro]

You can also check this new lens out:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-15mm-f-2-4-lens-review-30126

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Maybe the Tamron 15-30/2.8. I have seen comparisons against the Nikon 14-24, not too shabby! I love my 14-24. For anything recognizable in the frame like a car or person 14 mm is already too wide. For astroscapes it's great. The new Canon 16-35/2.8 III looks like a winner in performance, but pricey.

[NancyP]

The 12mm f/2.8 rectilinear-projection Laowa is about to be released. For fisheye, the 12 mm f/2.8 Samyang (Rokinon, Bower, ProOptic, etc) stereographic-projection diagnonal fisheye is said to look pretty good, particularly for astrophotography (no-panoramic-compositing for wide view of meteor showers). There is an unusual Canon zoom fisheye 8-15 mm f/4 lens (circular projection at 8 mm, diagonal at 15 mm).

[Phil Indeblanc]

If you don't mind a little post distortion fix, the Rokinon 12mm 2.8, I think mentioned is a solid performer! Also the 11-14 Tamron.

[kers]

You can also check this new lens out:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-15mm-f-2-4-lens-review-30126

here is an other review of the Irix from Lenstip.
http://www.lenstip.com/486.1-Lens_review-Irix_15_mm_f_2.4_Blackstone.html
you can check also other options; they make good and many reviews...

[Phil Indeblanc]

Surprised whyt he Tamron 15-30 is not mentioned. A very good lens

I have the 12mm 2.8 from Rokinon. Very sharp and usable corners. I love it.
I stopped using the 17-35 Tamron, another solid performer,...
But for landscape,
I like the super wide, then the 24-70. I guess after 12, I don't need whats in between that and 24mm?
I don't mind fixing the perspective of keepers.
But for rectilinear there is a Laowa 12mm zero distortion

Chris Frost is a fav of mine for lens reviews on YouTube.
I'm waiting for Erik to start a Youtube channel to bump Chris :-)